On Tuesday 29 November 2005 08:05 am, you wrote: > Jacob Meuser <jakemsr <at> jakemsr.com> writes: > > why are you specifying AUTOMAKE_VERSION and AUTOCONF_VERSION > > if you aren't using automake or autoconf? > > I copied the Makefile from another port I was working on; I was > expecting the worse :) > > > wouldn't java be a more appropriate category than devel? > > Yes; I started out thinking that java would be the right category. > But: jdk, jakarta-servletapi, apache-ant. are in devel; jikes and > kaffe are in lang; and fastjar is in archivers. Go figure. Majority > rules? It might make send to put them all under java.
Your thinking about things wrong. By way of example, if the thing your porting is an audio application, then it goes into catagory audio as its first catagory (even if it is written in java). java can be the second catagory to help with cross refefencing things. Since all the programming languages are in lang (except for devel/jdk), I think "CATAGORY = lang java" is right for both jamvm and classpath. > > port directories do not have version numbers. sometimes there > > may be foo/bar and foo/bar2 or some such, but those only exist if > > there is good reason to have two "generations" of a package in > > the ports tree. > > Good comment; I'm anticipating the need for multiple releases. > > Classpath is a moving target. They've been producing developer > release every two months. Although 0.19 sounds like they are just > getting started they are 96% of the way to a conforming JDK 1.4 class > library, and within five mauve tests of a conforming JDK 1.2. So I > expect to see at least two more classpath developer releases *before* > OpenBSD 3.9. > > On the other side of the coin is the jit/jvm space. There is a very > strong push for jit/jvm developers to operate out of the box with the > classpath releases. Some projects are already there, others are about > to catch up. Before 0.19 most projects did a special classpath > integration. So, for example, you see gcc 3.4 stuck back at > something like 0.12; btw gcc 4.1 will take classpath out of the box > soon; cacao-0.93 already does. Kaffe is getting there (so I hear.) > JamVM is easy because it already was there. > > All this is to say that here's classpath/0.19 and expect > classpath/0.20 and /0.21 about 6 months out, depending on the timing > of the jits and jvms. "Lots of harmony." > > There is also the related issue of parallel installations, which I > have not addressed yet and won't until I get a second jit/jvm in > play. I still dont see the reason for having mutiple jamvm ports or classpath ports. If as you say vm's are moving toward decoupling, then one classpath port should suffice. can jamvm be built or run without a classpath package installed? It must have a BUILD_DEPEND and RUN_DEPEND on classpath if not. You've recevied a lot of feedback so far. Please incorporate it into new versions of your ports. Look at other ports for examples. The whole ports tree is full of examples of how to do things right. Make sure you read the documentation that is available to you like bsd.port.mk(5), ports(5) and http://www.openbsd.org/porting.html too. It will help you catch your own mistakes. -Kurt
